Posted: 8/30/2013 7:17:39 PM EDT
|
Obama doesn't need Congressional approval because Congress isn't in session.
Simple, huh? |
|
The White House's explanation is "Because Congress will not cooperate with the President, the President can just ignore Congress." Oh, ok. The Constitution only applies if the President gets what he wants. If he doesn't, he can ignore it. Got it. I assume any future Republican president will be accorded the same discretion with not a peep from the media or the Congress.
|
|
Quoted:
The White House's explanation is "Because Congress will not cooperate with the President, the President can just ignore Congress." Oh, ok. The Constitution only applies if the President gets what he wants. If he doesn't, he can ignore it. Got it. I assume any future Republican president will be accorded the same discretion with not a peep from the media or the Congress. Maybe my sarcasm meter is out of whack tonight.... The WH didn't really say that....right? |
|
Quoted:
Obama doesn't need Congressional approval because Congress isn't in session. Simple, huh? Congress wasn't in session when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harber either. That didn't stop FDR! HOW long did it take to get Congress back in session and to declare war? ONE day! |
|
Quoted:
If the sitting president was a republican they would shit them self screaming how it was illegal. Fucking lying hypocrites BTDT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_El_Dorado_Canyon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada |
|
Quoted: Maybe my sarcasm meter is out of whack tonight.... The WH didn't really say that....right? Quoted: Quoted: The White House's explanation is "Because Congress will not cooperate with the President, the President can just ignore Congress." Oh, ok. The Constitution only applies if the President gets what he wants. If he doesn't, he can ignore it. Got it. I assume any future Republican president will be accorded the same discretion with not a peep from the media or the Congress. Maybe my sarcasm meter is out of whack tonight.... The WH didn't really say that....right?  Let me find the quote, I heard it on Rush today.
|
|
Quoted:
The White House's explanation is "Because Congress will not cooperate with the President, the President can just ignore Congress." This country gets more dysfunctional EVERY F'ing day! I can't imagine Congress putting up with that for one second! Wait! Yes, they will, the Senate is over half Democrat (in other words Brain Dead!) |
|
Quoted: Yes, it did Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The White House's explanation is "Because Congress will not cooperate with the President, the President can just ignore Congress." Oh, ok. The Constitution only applies if the President gets what he wants. If he doesn't, he can ignore it. Got it. I assume any future Republican president will be accorded the same discretion with not a peep from the media or the Congress. Maybe my sarcasm meter is out of whack tonight.... The WH didn't really say that....right? Let me find the quote, I heard it on Rush today. The WH's argument seems to be "Because Obama is more popular in polls than Congress, Obama doesn't need Congessional approval to do anything, even when he has no Constitutional authority to do so." |
|
I believe that we should be involved in Syria. I believe we should be doing far more than we apparently are planning to do. I also believe that the President should make his case to the American people and the Congress. I strongly believe that you need Congressional approval to go to war unless there is an imminent threat. If the Congress are a bunch of idiots and think that somehow things will all work out for us if we're not involved than so be it you just don't go to war.
|
|
Quoted:
Let me find the quote, I heard it on Rush today. I am having a hard time finding this but I have heard this, I know it. The WH's argument seems to be "Because Obama is more popular in polls than Congress, Obama doesn't need Congessional approval to do anything, even when he has no Constitutional authority to do so." Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The White House's explanation is "Because Congress will not cooperate with the President, the President can just ignore Congress." Oh, ok. The Constitution only applies if the President gets what he wants. If he doesn't, he can ignore it. Got it. I assume any future Republican president will be accorded the same discretion with not a peep from the media or the Congress. Maybe my sarcasm meter is out of whack tonight.... The WH didn't really say that....right?
Let me find the quote, I heard it on Rush today. I am having a hard time finding this but I have heard this, I know it. The WH's argument seems to be "Because Obama is more popular in polls than Congress, Obama doesn't need Congessional approval to do anything, even when he has no Constitutional authority to do so." This? Anyway, John Fund at National Review writes about all the hypocrisy going on. Of course, everybody says, "There's no hypocrisy. Don't worry about that. That was then; this is now. Obama didn't know what he was doing, didn't know the way of the world back then. But now he does, Rush! Now he's learned. Now it's serious. When he was criticizing Bush, Obama didn't know how the world worked.
"He didn't know the Middle East was a bunch of bad guys. He didn't know that Al-Qaeda was a bunch of bad guys. He didn't know all these various actors, groups, countries and their hatred for the US. You don't understand it, Rush." Right. Okay. Fund says he appeared last night with Lou Dobbs, Fox Business Network. Also on the show was Mary Anne Marsh. Mary Anne Marsh is from Boston. She's "a Democratic consultant whose clients have included the late Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, our current secretary of state." She showed up, as every Democrat on every cable TV show does, "Armed with the latest Democratic talking points, she dismissed any need for Obama to consult with what she dismissed as 'a special Congress.' Here's her full quote: "There is a special Congress that we’re dealing with right now that has the lowest popularity rating in history and Republicans who overwhelmingly would oppose taking any action. The president of the United States cannot be handcuffed by the same Republicans that are holding the rest of the country hostage on every other issue. That is wrong." http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/08/28/democrats_why_should_obama_have_to_deal_with_an_illegitimate_gop_congress |
|
Quoted:
I believe that we should be involved in Syria. I believe we should be doing far more than we apparently are planning to do. I also believe that the President should make his case to the American people and the Congress. I strongly believe that you need Congressional approval to go to war unless there is an imminent threat. If the Congress are a bunch of idiots and think that somehow things will all work out for us if we're not involved than so be it you just don't go to war. We're not going to go to war. At the very worst, Obama will initiate some tomahawk strikes. Syria will lose a headquarters or two, probably some aircraft, a refueling/maintenance depot and an empty chemical weapons storehouse. Obama will then have proven that he backed up his "red line" statement and then everything will go right back to the way it was before. |
|
Quoted: We're not going to go to war. At the very worst, Obama will initiate some tomahawk strikes. Syria will lose a headquarters or two, probably some aircraft, a refueling/maintenance depot and an empty chemical weapons storehouse. Obama will then have proven that he backed up his "red line" statement and then everything will go right back to the way it was before. Quoted: Quoted: I believe that we should be involved in Syria. I believe we should be doing far more than we apparently are planning to do. I also believe that the President should make his case to the American people and the Congress. I strongly believe that you need Congressional approval to go to war unless there is an imminent threat. If the Congress are a bunch of idiots and think that somehow things will all work out for us if we're not involved than so be it you just don't go to war. We're not going to go to war. At the very worst, Obama will initiate some tomahawk strikes. Syria will lose a headquarters or two, probably some aircraft, a refueling/maintenance depot and an empty chemical weapons storehouse. Obama will then have proven that he backed up his "red line" statement and then everything will go right back to the way it was before. No shit. This whole thing is a fucking mockery of us. Either you go in to destroy them or you don't go in at all. This pathetic attempt to save face will only make Assad look more powerful and embolden our enemies.
|
|
Quoted:
We're not going to go to war. At the very worst, Obama will initiate some tomahawk strikes. Syria will lose a headquarters or two, probably some aircraft, a refueling/maintenance depot and an empty chemical weapons storehouse. Obama will then have proven that he backed up his "red line" statement and then everything will go right back to the way it was before. Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe that we should be involved in Syria. I believe we should be doing far more than we apparently are planning to do. I also believe that the President should make his case to the American people and the Congress. I strongly believe that you need Congressional approval to go to war unless there is an imminent threat. If the Congress are a bunch of idiots and think that somehow things will all work out for us if we're not involved than so be it you just don't go to war. We're not going to go to war. At the very worst, Obama will initiate some tomahawk strikes. Syria will lose a headquarters or two, probably some aircraft, a refueling/maintenance depot and an empty chemical weapons storehouse. Obama will then have proven that he backed up his "red line" statement and then everything will go right back to the way it was before. The primary problem I see with this is Russia and other nations. Putin won't hesitate (like our Dear Leader) to back up his promise. Would a few tomahawks be reason enough for him to carry out his promise(s)? Quite possibly. If that happens, shit is gonna hit the fan. Putin would love to rub Obama's nose in some poop and this is a great excuse to do it. |
|
Quoted:
The primary problem I see with this is Russia and other nations. Putin won't hesitate (like our Dear Leader) to back up his promise. Would a few tomahawks be reason enough for him to carry out his promise(s)? Quite possibly. If that happens, shit is gonna hit the fan. Putin would love to rub Obama's nose in some poop and this is a great excuse to do it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe that we should be involved in Syria. I believe we should be doing far more than we apparently are planning to do. I also believe that the President should make his case to the American people and the Congress. I strongly believe that you need Congressional approval to go to war unless there is an imminent threat. If the Congress are a bunch of idiots and think that somehow things will all work out for us if we're not involved than so be it you just don't go to war. We're not going to go to war. At the very worst, Obama will initiate some tomahawk strikes. Syria will lose a headquarters or two, probably some aircraft, a refueling/maintenance depot and an empty chemical weapons storehouse. Obama will then have proven that he backed up his "red line" statement and then everything will go right back to the way it was before. The primary problem I see with this is Russia and other nations. Putin won't hesitate (like our Dear Leader) to back up his promise. Would a few tomahawks be reason enough for him to carry out his promise(s)? Quite possibly. If that happens, shit is gonna hit the fan. Putin would love to rub Obama's nose in some poop and this is a great excuse to do it. It is Putin's perfect opportunity. Obama's only reaction will be to cry like a little bitch and blame it all on Bush. |
|
Quoted:
It is Putin's perfect opportunity. Obama's only reaction will be to cry like a little bitch and blame it all on Bush. And even better, if Zero doesn't actually do anything, Putin can say "Well, I threatened them with retaliation, the US backed off. I'm the man, US can go suck a dick." With one small situation and a stupid comment from Dear Leader, Putin can significantly degrade the US' standing in the world by making us look powerless/ stupid/ ineffective. Good job Barry. No matter what you do, you make us look like dumbasses on the international stage. Again. You fucking idiot. FBHO |
|
Quoted:
............... We're not going to go to war. At the very worst, Obama will initiate some tomahawk strikes. Syria will lose a headquarters or two, probably some aircraft, a refueling/maintenance depot and an empty chemical weapons storehouse. Obama will then have proven that he backed up his "red line" statement and then everything will go right back to the way it was before. Assad weathers the attack, keeps on truckin', US is left holding its dick, looking feckless. |
|
Quoted:
The White House's explanation is "Because Congress will not cooperate with the President, the President can just ignore Congress." Oh, ok. The Constitution only applies if the President gets what he wants. If he doesn't, he can ignore it. Got it. I assume any future Republican president will be accorded the same discretion with not a peep from the media or the Congress. Don't question his royal highness king 0bama |
Screw Obongo, screw Hitlery, screw Bill, screw Holder, screw BiteMe, and screw Lurch (Kerry that is! I don't want to friendly fire LurchAddams on here)! I'm leaving many freedom haters out of this just for the fact that the list would be too long, but with that said screw them too!.
|
|
Quoted:
Screw Obongo, screw Hitlery, screw Bill, screw Holder, screw BiteMe, and screw Lurch (Kerry that is! I don't want to friendly fire LurchAddams on here)! I'm leaving many freedom haters out of this just for the fact that the list would be too long, but with that said screw them too!. They don't hate freedom. They just hate YOUR freedom. |